Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Poetry Corner

This poem may be illegal under the Glorification of Terrorism bill.

This poem has no possible relevance to anything in last weeks news.

6 comments:

Louise H said...

I've been humming the second one for several days now. Coincidence? Or something more sinister?

Nick Mazonowicz said...

I was under the impression that the Easter uprising was one of the events that would be specifically excluded from the Glorification of Terrorism bill.

SK said...

I'm nto sure why being a talented poet should allow you to get away with glorifying terrorism; if anything it's worse, because a talented poet will be more persuasive.

However, the government's policy on terrorism is hideously two-faced anyway, as even while it claims to be protecting us from terrorists it proposes legislation to give an amnesty to murderers and bends over backwards to get unrepentant terrorists into positions of power.

Mr Blair's only concern is how he looks in the history books: morality, trust, and justice don't even come into it.

Chestertonian Rambler said...

Am I the only one who considers the fact that a man can be a freedom fighter AND a terrorist?

I just find it a stupid bit of rhetoric, because for me "terrorist" means "person outside of army who refuses to follow generally accepted rules of combat." I consider George Washington a noble man and a freedom fighter, but that doesn't mean that by the rules of his age he wasn't a terrorist.

All right, I've vented now.

Phil Masters said...

I just find it a stupid bit of rhetoric, because for me "terrorist" means "person outside of army who refuses to follow generally accepted rules of combat."

Umm, that may be how it ends up being used, but I think that there's a need for a term which means something a bit different to "guerilla fighter" or "irregular". Specifically, I think that we probably need a word for someone who sets out to achieve his ends, not just throuhg violence, but specifically by the maximum propagation of fear and terror, and who therefore tends to target non-combatants, not just as a side-effect or even as an occasional ruthless option, but as a primary tactic.

Which is tricky, of course, because any successful soldier tends to put the fear of god into his enemies, including some noncombatants. But still... I can't help thinking that there's a difference between most "freedom fighters" and people who fly hijacked airliners into buildings, enough that different words are indicated.

Associated problems... People who drive truck bombs into military barracks may be ruthless nutters who are trying to spread terror, but they aren't targetting noncombatants. It'll bug the hell out of some people, but it'd probably be better not to call them terrorists. (Though people like that usually seem quite willing to target anyone else who they dislike, so they can soon move into the category.) And regular, uniformed, military forces who deliberately target non-military installations, and murder civilians, to "disrupt enemy morale" are acting as terrorists, whatever their self-image. Though a better term to use there might be "war criminals". just to distinguish them from the non-uniformed types using the same tactics.

Andrew Rilstone said...

"...even while it claims to be protecting us from terrorists it proposes legislation to give an amnesty to murderers and bends over backwards to get unrepentant terrorists into positions of power."

I'm not sure I've caught your references here. Could you possibly point me to the original "Daily Mail" editorials?


I think that m'learned friend may be pointing up a possible inconsistency between issuing amnesties and early release schemes for people in Ireland who have actually committed acts of terrorism; and imprisoning people on the mainland who have only talked about doing so.